When the simple power function fails to describe psychophysical results, it is necessary to add or subtract a constant from either the stimuli or responses in order to reinstitute a power function. It is suggested here that this failure results from the nonlinearity of the function between the Weber fraction and stimulus intensity. Computer simulation experiments were conducted which supported this contention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AibaT. S.StevensS. S.Relation of brightness to duration and luminance under light-and-dark adaptation. Vis. Res., 1964, 4, 391–401.
2.
BairdJ. C.A cognitive theory of psychophysics: I. Information transmission, partitioning, and Weber's Law. Scand. J. Psychol., 1969, in press. (a)
3.
BairdJ. C.A cognitive theory of psychophysics: II. Fechner's Law and Stevens' Law. Scand. J. Psychol., 1969, in press. (b)
4.
CurtisD. W.AttneaveF.HarringtonT. L.A test of a two-stage model of magnitude judgment. Percep. & Psychophys., 1968, 3, 25–31.
5.
EkmanG.Subjective power functions and the method of fractionation. Rep. Psychol. Lab., Univer. Stockholm, 1956, No. 34.
6.
EkmanG.Weber's law and related functions. J. Psychol., 1959, 47, 343–352.
7.
EkmanG.BergstroemB.KuennapasT.A comparison between two psychophysical scaling methods. Rep. Psychol. Lab., Univer. Stockholm, 1956, No. 37.
8.
EkmanG.GustafsonU.Threshold values and the psychophysical function in brightness vision. Vis. Res., 1968, 8, 747–758.
9.
FagotR. F.Alternative power laws for ratio scaling. Psychometrika, 1966, 31, 201–214.
10.
FagotR. F.StewartM. R.An experimental comparison of stimulus and response translated power functions for brightness. Percep. & Psychophys., 1968, 3, 297–305.
11.
FagotR. F.StewartM. R.Tests of product and additive scaling axioms. Percep. & Psychophys., 1969, 5, 117–123. (a)
